M/S. TOP TEN VANIJYA PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 34/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 March 2025AY 2015-2016Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. In the interest of natural justice, the appeal was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Income Tax Bar Association within 60 days.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2015-16. The appeal was filed with a delay of 38 days. The assessee's representative did not appear before the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) as they were not informed about the hearing dates.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and restore the case to the Assessing Officer with a cost, in the interest of natural justice, when the assessee failed to represent due to non-intimation of hearing dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.03.2025Pronounced: 11.03.2025

Present for: Appellant by : Shri Miraj D Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”] vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056193588(1) dated 18.09.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for AY 2015-16.

2.

Shri Miraj D Shah, AR appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sailen Samadder, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

Appeal of the assessee is time barred by 38 days. In respect of the condonation of delay the assessee has filed an application explaining the

4.

A perusal of the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) show that they are ex parte, as the assessee did not represent before them because the Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not intimate the assessee about the dates of hearing. However, in the interest of natural justice, we restore the appeal of the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer subject to paying a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be paid to the Income Tax Bar Association (ITBA) within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the Assessing Officer at the first hearing. Should the assessee not pay the abovementioned cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of this order, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shall stand confirmed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose subject to above directions.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →